On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:16:20PM +0100, Nick wrote:
> I've been using uzbl without much in the user agent field for a
> month or two now (since finding eff's panopticlick info), and
> haven't noticed any site fail for me. Granted I don't use many
> ajax-heavy sites such as gmail which might be expected to do more
> checks.
>
> To me it looks like not sending the string seems most reasonable.
Hang on, do you suggest the code for sending the User-Agent string
should be removed, or have the User-Agent string empty by default?
I doubt there'll be fans of the first, when they run into sites where
the UA is checked for. On top of that, i never asked if we really need
some UA at all, but since we do (and there's probably a reason it has
been changed in the past too) i was suggesting to change the string
to something more sane.
Again, i agree that the UA shouldn't be used. If we don't care about
losing Surf users, or Surf users having a second browser for sites that
do check for a UA, i'd say give it a go. But i doubt that's the idea
Surf was written with. Me myself and i wish to keep it to one, Surf.
--
Marvin Vek
-
/* Only Sun can take such nice parts and fuck up the programming interface
* like this. Good job guys...
*/
linux-2.6.6/drivers/net/sunhme.c
